rameumptom

RAM: No, the OT tells us that if a man prophesies and that prophesy does not come to pass, to not believe in the prophesy. Did you know that Jesus prophesied and expected the second coming to be in that very generation? Does that mean his 1 wrong prophesy makes Jesus a false prophet? I don't think so. You've misread D&C 87. Joseph Smith said that modern warfare would start with the Civil War, where the South would call upon England and other nations for assistance. Later, England would call upon nations for help, at which time war would fall upon all nations. Looks like Joseph Smith was correct, after all. I suggest you start looking at the actual prophecies and studying them, rather than picking up bad info from anti-Mormon sites. Moses saw God "face to face" - does that mean Moses lied? I would suggest that the Bible is incomplete on its meaning. Joseph Smith taught that a person could not see God, unless transfigured by the Holy Ghost; which is what occurred to Moses, when he saw God. Oh, and Stephen saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God - which to me means that Stephen saw God the Father. Shall we continue this dance? You are only proving your poor and inconsistent knowledge of the Bible. RAM: The men that were on the road to Emmaus, when Jesus spoke with them incognito, stated after he disappeared, "did not our hearts burn within us when he spake?" Elijah sought God, but did not find him in the earthquake or the fire, but in the "still, small voice." And Paul taught that the fruits of the Spirit are peace, joy, confidence, etc. Clearly, these are emotions that are involved, as Mormons claim that the Spirit burns in the bosom or is a "still, small voice" that speaks to the heart of man. As for demons, they can do many things, but the Bible doesn't specify what he can or can't do. It is a fool that trusts in his own heart, but it isn't a fool that trusts in the witness of the Holy Spirit - there is a difference. I can tell the difference between my own emotions and the power of the Holy Ghost within me. RAM: How do you prove Jesus' miracles? How do you prove the dividing of the Red Sea? The only "historical documents" available are not historical documents. It is the Bible and a few other Jewish documents that are still available. But the copies we have do not date back to Jesus' day, much less back to Moses' day. Joseph Smith was tarred and feathered, beaten, falsely imprisoned, and murdered for his faith. Sounds like Paul and the apostles of old had nothing on Joseph Smith. RAM: You can read it as you wish. To me, "co-heirs with Christ" means we will get exactly what Christ received. Is Christ "God" or "like God?" Peter says we can partake of the divine nature of God. Does this mean God's exact nature, or something else? Who is twisting the scriptural reading here? I don't think it is me. RAM: There is no God beside God. However, there are gods subordinate to him. In fact, Origen and Eusebius taught that Jesus was a subordinate God to the Father. We will never be on the same level as God is. He is the one that saves and exalts us, and so we will always be his children in the eternal family unit. Besides, Isaiah was discussing the God of Israel, and not the other divine council, which were gods over the other nations. In some other nations they shared gods, or a god was overthrown by another, etc. Jehovah was stating that he is the only God of Israel. Read Margaret Barker's Great Angel and other writings for more info on this. See the next post for the rest....

I do not pity the Catholics for the truths they have. I pity all of us for the lack of understanding we have of God's full truth. Still, I do pity more those who believe in an absolutely closed canon, with no modern inspiration at all. The Catholics do believe in modern inspiration through their Pope and bishops. Many evangelicals seek the Spirit in their life. There are some Christian faiths that reject the gifts of the Spirit, such as the Church of Christ, which does not believe in the Holy Spirit today, either. Alma 29:8 teaches that God gives to all people the level of truth and light they are ready and willing to receive. PC, I'm sure you would agree that some Christian churches veer closer to the fullness of truth than do others. I think this is the where the LDS claim of being the "only true and living Church with which the Lord is well pleased". There are other churches that also are true and living, perhaps, but that have farther to go to achieve a fullness of truth. In his second volume on Exploring Mormon Thought, Blake Ostler notes that while many focus on the metaphysical aspects of God (Trinity vs Godhead), the real aspect we need to focus upon isn't whether God is a spirit, but "God is love." It is the relational aspect of God, and how we approach God's love through Christ, a true and living relationship with the Godhead, that is of utmost importance for all Christians and mortals. Who is closer to God? The Mormon that fights with his family each and every Family Home Evening, or Mother Theresa - who spent her life emulating Christ? In which individuals does God indwell, sharing his Agape love for others? I don't think this type of relationship with Christ is limited to Mormons, though I do believe that incorrect creeds and beliefs can hamper our developing that relationship. For example, for the individual that believes God is the Unmoved Mover - how does one develop a loving relationship with a Being that is unmoved by us; whether we repent or sin is immaterial to Him. IMO, such a belief can make it more difficult to develop that loving Father-child relationship with God. And in this way, the incorrect belief systems, whether they are in the traditional Christian Church, or amongst the Mormons or others, keep us from developing a fullness of relationship and receiving of the divine nature.

It is my understanding that Catholic priests are ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood, suggesting that if they are correct in their claim of priesthood lineage, the early Christian Church DID pass on the priesthood along the way. Our view is that at some point there was a loss of the priesthood, probably a gradual loss, until the fulness was lost. This required a restoration of the fulness of the priesthood. BTW, we do view Christ as the Great High Priest, and that there are none greater than he. Since he is not currently active on the earth, he has called others to represent him and has shared his priesthood power with them (LDS).

RAM: We are begotten spiritually of God. Remember that Paul, in Hebrews, called God the 'father of our spirits.' Paul states that we are co-heirs with Christ. RAM: The divine council was traditionally a council of 70 sons of Elohim, including Yahweh. Check Margaret Barker's writings at her website for more info. RAM: I believe that you are playing with words. Christ holds the highest form and place in the Melchizedek Priesthood. No one has his qualifications. Can there be others that are called as High Priests? Yes, just as there were several high priests in the Aaronic Priesthood. But that does not mean all high priests are equal. [\Quote]RAM: I cannot explain the Trinity. It is a mystery. Part of the description in the creeds is that the Trinity is "incomprehensible" and "unknowable", so why should I even try to explain that which is not explainable? Still, I must understand it better than those Trinitarians who describe the Trinity in a modalistic manner. Otherwise, they would cease attempting to describe it in heretical modalistic fashion. Jesus prayed that his disciples may become one even as Jesus and God are one (John 17). If we read this as the Trinity is understood, then somehow we need to change our understanding of the resurrection to one where we are absorbed into one another and then into Christ. The Trinity also confuses the resurrection of Jesus. How can Jesus be resurrected, yet be without a physical body? He cannot have a physical body in the Trinitarian ideal, because God cannot be impurified by outside substance, which that physical body is. Yet, in Luke 24, Jesus told his disciples to touch and feel his body, because a spirit/ghost does not have a physical body as he had. Then in Acts 1, the angels told the disciples that Jesus would return in the same way he left - which I presume would include his physical body! Early Christians understood that God and Jesus were separate beings. Origen said that Jesus was subordinate to the Father. Arius went further and said that since there is only one God, Jesus was Lord, but not God! The Trinity didn't get its legs until the Nicene Creed in 325 AD, and then still almost faltered for another century. Even after that, the docetic Chalcedon creed had to be established to state that Jesus had two personalities: one divine and one human; because God's persons could not be contaminated by earthly substance, according to the Trinity and Platonic view of God. LDS teach that Jesus has one, and only one, personality. He is both human and divine, because they are not mutually exclusive. Humanity is like an acorn to the divine oak, or like a baby compared to an adult human. The acorn and baby do not have all the qualities or abilities of the adult, but that doesn't mean they are not of the same substance. God, Jesus and we are of the same substance, which means we CAN obtain the divine nature of God. I cannot fathom how we can be like Christ or God if we are of a different substance and nature, and there's nothing that can make us that pure. Jesus and God are one, in that they are one in the Godhead (a word used by Paul, whereas Trinity does not show up in the Bible). The Godhead is a relationship of intense Agape love, where what one does, the others also do. Jesus stated he does the things he has seen his Father do. That wouldn't make sense if they were the same being. Stephen saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God - was Stephen deceived by the Trinitarian God? Or are they actually individual beings? Jesus prayed to the Father, stating they had separate wills - something one would not have from the same Being. All of these are major problems with the Trinity. I have yet to find a Trinitarian who can explain them beyond the idea that it is all a mystery. But that is a non-answer. Jesus told us that eternal life is to KNOW God and Jesus (John 17:3). Yet, if they are a mystery, we can never obtain to eternal life. If you can answer these issues of the Trinity, I'd be very glad to understand them. However, I've listened to the same answers for decades, and have yet to find a cogent answer. And as it is, most non-scholar Trinitarians do not believe in creedal Trinitarianism, as they explain God in a modalistic form. If you guys and girls who claim to be Trinitarians can't formulate a workable answer of what you worship, how can you expect me to understand and accept it? As you can see, the LDS Godhead is easily explainable and backed up by scripture. I can know the Godhead. I could never begin to understand the mystery of the Trinity.

RAM: We can discuss issues, both pros and cons about facts on Joseph Smith. But in the long run, it can't "prove" or "disprove" anything. Can we "prove" the miracles and resurrection of Jesus? Of course not. Somewhere along the way, it takes getting an answer to Jesus' divinity that human minds cannot obtain on their own. We find that "the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" (Revelation 19:10), therefore suggesting that testimonies of Jesus' divinity can only come through the spirit of prophecy. And so it is with any religious claim. While I can load you up with evidences of the Book of Mormon and other LDS claims, only a spiritual confirmation from the Holy Spirit can assure a person of its actual veracity. Otherwise, we get a variety of conclusions about Joseph Smith (or Jesus, for that matter). Dan Vogel calls him a pious fraud, Harold Bloom considered Joseph Smith a genius with some spiritual insight, some call Joseph an imbecile, others consider him a genius. Of course, LDS consider him a prophet of God. After looking at the evidence, how does one "prove" whether the witnesses of the Book of Mormon really saw gold plates, rather than some tin plates that Joseph put together? Then again, how does one prove Jesus' miracles or his resurrection? Perhaps it was all made up by Paul and a few other eager Christians. Only a spiritual witness, can suffice. And in Paul's case, that is exactly what it required to convert him. RAM: Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God IN THE FLESH. We are begotten spiritually of God. In Hebrews, Paul calls God the "father of our spirits." As for the Jeremiah quote, I gave evidence, but as you can see it was no "proof" for you. Answers can be given, but the individual can accept or reject the interpretation. I choose a more literal translation of Jeremiah's experience, while you make it allegorical. When an architect designs a building, he has a vision of what it is, but that does not mean he "knows" it. God stated that he "knew" Jeremiah before he was formed in the womb. God did not state that he envisioned Jeremiah, or planned for Jeremiah before his birth. God stated that he "knew" him. You can allegorize it all you want, but I'll take the literal translation. Once again, this is reason for going to God for a spiritual answer to spiritual questions. If Joseph Smith really was God's prophet, and you had a spiritual witness of it, then this reading from Jeremiah would already be answered for you. If you spiritually knew that Joseph Smith was not a prophet, the quote in Jeremiah still would not be answered, as my reading still could be correct. RAM: I have given many examples of this recently. The divine council is a major discussion for Biblical scholars today. I suggest you read some of Margaret Barker's writings on line: Margaret Barker She is a Methodist preacher, and top Old Testament scholar in England. Job 1 and Isaiah 6 show us the premortal divine council. Jeremiah 1:6 as mentioned, shows a premortal Jeremiah. I'm beginning to feel you aren't serious about the discussion, because I've mentioned these several times before, but you seem to have ignored it all. This is critical, because it helps us understand our place with God. Knowing we are his spirit children means we are not created ex nihilo, and that we are of the same substance as God is. This means that all the biblical writings and early Christian writings about us becoming divine, are correct. The Platonic idea that God is of a different substance than man means we cannot ever be like God. But the earliest Jews and Christians did not think that. Paul taught we should think like Christ, that it was not robbery to be like God, and that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ. John the Revelator states we are made kings and priests unto God, and to reign with him forever. Peter says that we are of the divine nature. Post Nicene Christians lost this understanding, as they did not understand the pre-mortal existence and our tie with God. Instead, they accepted the Greek idea that God is of a different substance than everything, and so we can never be like God. Unfortunately for them, that is not what the scriptures teach. See the next post for the rest of the answer....

Hemidakota has shared with you a verse calling for us to be "saviors on mount Zion." When I go to the temple and do baptisms for the dead, I become a savior (little 's') in helping provide salvation to others. When I served my mission, I helped many hear the gospel, and helped bring salvation to them. When I serve in my current calling, I offer salvation. Christ performed all his works through the Melchizedek Priesthood. And while he is the only one who is THE Savior (capital 'S'), he has shared his authority and power with us, so that we can assist him in his labors of saving mankind. In this way, we become as He is, in serving Christ as he needs us to serve in bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of mankind (Moses 1:39).

I think Elder McConkie moved the gospel forward in many ways during his time as an apostle. He was head of the project to create the LDS version of the scriptures, including the Topical Guide, footnotes, etc. He was a prolific writer, whose ideas caused me to consider many gospel topics in new ways. As it is, I also saw many of his views change over time in his own writings. Mormon Doctrine has a very different feel than the Messiah series, for instance. Was everything he wrote/said doctrine? Of course not. Even he admitted his mistake on blacks and the priesthood, for example. But it was great to see he was open minded enough and humble enough to listen to the Leaders, when they told him to revise Mormon Doctrine, or when a new revelation came about that disproved one of his theories. I use him as a reference, but not as my only reference. And I realize that his writings were written in a very authoritative voice, which sometimes is hard to stomach. But I look past the lack of tact, and to the things he taught. Of course, the greatest thing he said was his final testimony in General Conference.

April 12th at IUPUI (Indiana U/Perdue U in Indianapolis) there will be an all day seminar on Mormons and American Life. Presenters include both LDS and non-LDS. The speakers include: Jan Shipps - non-LDS expert on LDS history, and prof at IUPUI Kathleen Flake, Assoc Prof of American religion at Vanderbilt William Deverell, Prof of History at USC J. Spencer Flubman, Assist Prof Church History, BYU Sarah Barringer Gordon, Prof of law and history, U of Penn Kathryn Daynes, Assoc Prof of history, BYU Registration is free, but you must register at: 317-274-8409 [email protected] http://www.iupui.edu/~raac/downloads/CSRAC.pdf

You've misread the quote. It states, "the WORDS of a book that is sealed." That's very different than the book itself being delivered. And the words of the plates were delivered to a learned man, just as the prophecy tells us.

One thing that many do not understand is that the Godhead is not impassable, which means they do feel. Some Christians believe God has a different kind of love than we have, and that he is not affected by the sorrows and sufferings of mankind. Of course, that's not what the scriptures tell us. Jesus wept. He groaned under the sins of the world. The Bible tells us of God's wrath at the sins of people. LDS scripture tells us that the resurrected Jesus wept over the sins of Israel, but also rejoiced that the Nephites had repented and believed. The Book of Moses shows God weeping at the thought of destroying the Earth by Flood. Of all beings, God is fully God because he is plugged in to all of us. He knows and understands our joys and our sorrows, because he has also experienced them. He is, through the light of Christ that penetrates all of space, connected to all things. And they do influence him. When Hezekiah was told to prepare to die, and the king fasted and prayed, those prayers influenced God into giving Hezekiah 15 more years of life. When the Ninevites repented, much to Jonah's displeasure, God did not destroy them. If God was impassable, then our prayers would be meaningless. So would our sufferings. It would not matter to God if we were saved or not. But LDS scripture tells us that it is HIS work and HIS glory to bring about the immortality and eternal life of mankind (Moses 1:39). IOW, we are interconnected, and his eternal joy is somewhat dependent upon us, just as my joy is somewhat dependent upon my children growing up well. Nephi learned in the Vision of the Tree of Life (2 Ne 11-15) that there are two condescensions of God: the Father and the Son both condescend to achieve the atonement. Father gave his grace to Jesus, which gave him the power to do all things, including be a God. Jesus then used that power to atone for us and do other works. We are also commanded to seek God's grace and light, in order for us to also be able to use God's power for righteousness (D&C 93). In fact, the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood (D&C 84) explains that there are steps of grace we can take, which lead us through Christ to the Father and to all that the Father has. So, Father is very much involved in the entire process. But so is Jesus, the Holy Ghost, and all of those who seek the fulness of God's grace.

One thing that even many LDS do not understand well of our theology, is the relational tie of the Godhead. Agape love binds the three members together in more than just unity, but that they are bound in all things, except physical body. The mind of one becomes the mind of all of them. Secondly, that the power of godhood that Jesus and the Holy Ghost receive, they receive from the power of God the Father. D&C 93 tells us that Christ went from grace to grace, receiving grace for grace, until he received a fulness. Upon receiving a fulness of the Father, Jesus received his god status. And we are to seek the same inheritance of the Father, through Christ. We come to Christ, and through Christ may enter into that close Agape relationship with the Godhead, and receive through grace the ability to be as God is. For those who accept less of God's grace, they will receive the benefits that they are ready and willing to receive, to whatever level of light, glory and grace that may be. Christ becomes Creator under God's direction and grace. We become saviors of mankind under Christ's direction and grace. The day may come when we will also become creators under God's direction and grace. But it all has to do with entering into the type of loving relationship that the members of the Godhead share. And the more we learn to achieve that, the more Christ and the Father can bestow their grace upon us, so that we can imitate and be like them.

No, Emma's earned her own wings. Will she have to suffer in spirit prison hell for a time over things she needs to repent of? Possibly. But so will most of us, if I understand D&C 132 correctly, in that those who receive their calling and election made sure and then sin will be buffeted for a season before being exalted. I consider it the last purification we will go through prior to final judgment.

You'll note they didn't mention the LDS. We aren't orthodox, nor are we Protestant. So according to them we must be in an "Other" group. Which, btw, we are.

Actually, they are representative of the Woman (Church) as described in Revelation 12:1. This is the reason you see the stars at top, Sun below and then the moon at the base of the temple: because it primarily represents the woman and how she is described. Only in a secondary way do the stars, moon and sun symbolize the kingdoms of heaven.

The sealed portion is partially referenced in Joseph Smith's History/Testimony. Verse 65 tells of Martin Harris taking some of the characters to Professor Charles Anthon for review. Prof Anthon wanted to see the plates, but was told that a portion of them were sealed and could not be brought to him. He replied that he could not read a sealed book, fulfilling a prophecy in Isaiah 29.

Kevin makes some great points. May I add one other thought: What does it mean? It can easily be read that there are several true and living churches upon the earth, but the Lord is well pleased with only one of them right now. Can that mean there are others that the Lord is "fairly pleased" with? How about "somewhat pleased" with? Our readings can often read things into a statement that may mean something very different.

I have known many people who do not wish to have the part as a God/Goddess in the next life. I am certain they will get their wish, as the Lord taught in D&C 132 that those who do not enter into celestial marriage will be angels of God. Gaea, it may be possible you will even be in Heavenly Father's presence, depending on your faithfulness and acceptance of gospel truths. And if not, you will be promised your own cloud to play the harp on, in one of the kingdoms of glory.

Joseph Smith taught that we have a Heavenly Mother. That concept is also taught in one of our hymns, written by Eliza R. Snow, President of the Relief Society in early Salt Lake City. Just what does it mean to be a Heavenly Parent? We do not know, except that they accept us as their children/offspring. Whether that is from some actual birth process that occurs, or whether we are formed in some fashion and then adopted as their spirit children, we do not know. But IMO it really does not matter at this point.

Back in Joseph Smith's day, the inverted star was a common star to denote Jesus Christ. The 5th star point suggests the tail of a star, just like you'll often see such a star in Christmas movies about Jesus' birth. It is also found in several old Catholic cathedrals, and is on the U.S. Medal of Honor. Only in the past century or so has the inverted star been used by Satanists. It was NOT used by Satanists prior to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young's time. Since the Catholics and the US government have not seen the need to change their cathedrals and medals, we shouldn't either. http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/Stars.pdf

Usually the spiral means a descent or ascent. If it is a descent, it is normally associated with the Underworld, which isn't necessarily hell. In LDS thought, we believe that God works through "eternal rounds," which would be similar to an ascending spiral. Eternal rounds signify patterns. For example, as I develop faith in Christ and through that faith repent and show greater obedience, Christ sends a greater portion of His Holy Spirit to guide me. This increases my faith, which then gives me a greater resolve to repent and obey, leading to more of the Spirit's guidance in my life. The cycle continues in this manner until a person is perfected in Christ, moving from grace to grace, receiving grace for grace (D&C 93).

Not all doctrine or truths are found in the Book of Mormon or the Bible. One of the key teachings in the Book of Mormon is the fact that God continues to reveal His will to his people via prophets. To us, he has revealed new things (actually old things that have been lost) that God desired us to know in these latter days. BTW, one thing you may not be aware of is that 2/3 of the Gold Plates were sealed up and not translated, which contained a prophecy of the Earth from the beginning until the end. It may be that many of the things you expect to be in the portion of the Book of Mormon we have are in the sealed portion. Whether they are or aren't, the reality is that God continues to speak through prophets. We do not believe that God has said everything he wishes to say in the Bible and BoM. Why would we want to delimit God in such a way? The idea is the Bible and book of Mormon give us a foundational knowledge of Christ and his gospel. But it isn't everything. God has yet to reveal many things to mankind: how does one resurrect, for example? While many traditional Christians are hedged in by creeds that insist that the Bible and God's word are complete: LDS relish in the thought that God will reveal new things to us.

Genesis actually has two versions of the Creation (chapter 1 and chapter 2). Both have major differences, including when man is created (before or after the animals). Which one is correct? The Book of Abraham describes the premortal divine council planning the creation of the earth. Everything is created spiritually before it is physically created in LDS belief. Early Jewish teachings suggest this is true, as the early Hebrews believed in a divine council that planned the Creation. BTW, Genesis 1:26 gives a hint: "let US make man in OUR image." God was discussing this with the divine council, which explains the "us" and "our" references. I've read the Dead Sea Scrolls version of the Bible. Just where do you get that Genesis is incorrect, as the two of them are closely similar? The problem with Genesis comes from its latest authors, or where we got the traditions. The Documentary Hypothesis suggests that we get different versions of the Creation combined by early authors (post-Moses), that scholars call the Yahwist (J), Elohist (E), Priest group (P), Deuteronomists (D), and Redactor ®. Each put their own twists in, and eventually the differing sets of writings were combined, most likely by the Redactor (Esra) after the Diaspora. But these same influences are found in the DSS' version of Genesis, so your claim that the DSS supports the Book of Abraham is a bit premature. The various copies of the Hebrew Genesis, including the DSS, all basically state that the Elohim ('LHM) created the earth. The term can mean Gods or it can be the name of the chief God, El Elyon (God Almighty).

Jesus Christ is a God, and a member of the Godhead (Father, Son and Holy Ghost). He was called into the Godhead in the premortal existence, where he was also chosen to be our Savior (Abraham 3). In the Old Testament period, he was known as Yahweh or Jehovah, the Messiah and the Great Angel of the Presence (of God).

We are not sure how spirit children are formed. It is possible they are formed by Heavenly parents in the same way we are created. Then again, it is possible that they are created in a test tube. We just do not know. We do know that spirit is "organized intelligence" (Abraham 3), and that Intelligence is "Light and Truth" (D&C 93). Just what that entails, is speculative. Some believe that Intelligence has individuality, while others do not. Blake Ostler, in his book Exploring Mormon Thought vol I, suggests that Intelligence is the ability of any element to live certain laws. For example, God organizes lower intelligence into an Hydrogen atom, which holds certain innate capabilities. Then, he can organize Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms into water, which holds the previous abilities, but has a new level of ability as well - a higher intelligence. Once organized to a certain level, Intelligence becomes organized enough to have individuality as spirit children, and later organized again into a spirit with a physical body. I personally hold to this understanding. I know Brigham Young and others taught that spirit children were formed like mortal children are, however I also recognize that Brigham Young lived in the days before cloning and test tubes, which suggest that God has other methods he could choose to use to create/form spirit children. BTW, we also do not know how Adam was created.

While I suppose I could learn things from the Satanic Bible, I choose to focus on books and writings that are more reliable. I have read Nemelka's version of Lehi's writings, and while they aren't terrible; they also have some serious errors in them. And some of the teachings could and can lead people away from greater truths. As it is, I have a friend whose mother and brother have joined Nemelka's group and are convinced that he's the new prophet of God. It isn't that these are bad people, but they are not well-educated in doctrinal issues, either. Swaying people away from the greater truth (IMO, anyway), is not a good thing. The Book of Mormon had witnesses to its translation and to the gold plates. Nemelka has only his own testimony, which includes an admission to a newspaper that he was a fraud! No good can come out of this, especially when he has already stated he made the whole thing up.